Q) What is a Nation according to Ambedkar.

Critically examine his views with special reference to

Nationalism and Democracy.

Ishaan Lal, BA History Hons. 1st year

“I am greater a Nationalist than anybody else”, despite this confident proclamation, the
Congressmen labelled him as a “stooge of the British”.

Ambedkar was a barrister, politician, political scientist, economist, political sociologist,

anthropologist and a statesman. But prior to these occupations he was an aggressive proponent of
human rights and, hence, he, across the globe is known as the ‘Champion of Human Rights’.
However, this is only one aspect of his career. Many of his writings are also in the backdrop of the
nationalist movement in India and the partition. However, this aspect of Ambedkar is not known (as
it should have been) to many when compared with his stand for the Depressed Classes. The reason
behind this that he was is mostly projected as a ‘Defender of the Dalits’. This can also be seen as a
manoeuvre of the dominant and the elites for Ambedkar’s writings and speeches on the topic
unveiled the limitations of the movement and resonated with the apprehensions of the leading
figures of the nationalist movement. It was he who removed the façade of the so-called patriotism
and confronted, on every plane, the concept and reality of nation and nationalism. His most crucial
writings on the topic came during the decline of colonialism in India and highlighted the fact that
everyone in the country should have their say and representation in the governance of the country
rather than the absolute hegemony of the elites and the communal, who were in a delusion of
representing the masses of the country despite being aware of the heterogeneity of the population.
Also, he was aware of the many shades of independence and nationalism and hence, gave a call to
his people to stand up their rights for he had the apprehension that everything might revert back to
complete blasphemy governed by the obnoxious rules and morality. This apprehension had its roots
in the much evident dominance of ‘Hindu’ majority, that too high born. He, in the simplest of terms,
wanted democratic government working on the principles of Equality, Liberty and Fraternity and not
just a pretentious replacement of the colonial government in the name of nationalism. Also, apart
from nationalism, he had expressed in views on democratic working and the like. He had written
extensively on this topic and the same has been highlighted in writings like Annihilation of Caste, On
Linguistic States, Pakistan or Partition of India, What Congress and Gandhi have done to the
Untouchables and Ranade, Gandhi and Jinnah etc.

Firstly, Ambedkar says that Hindu identity itself is a major constraint for the building up of a nation.
He lays emphasis on the topic that there is a lack of consciousness of kind amongst the Hindus.
Consciousness of kind meaning the fraternal bonds or unity which governs a community.
Furthermore, he says that there are no common beliefs, customs and practices amongst the various
strata in the Hindu society and the Hindus are governed by what, is called the consciousness of
caste. Hence, Hindu society in totality is nothing more than a myth existing in the present time.
However, it should be kept in mind that by this Ambedkar was not being proponent of making India
a Hindu nation, but he was highlighting the problems of the Hindu in being a society, in complete
contrast to which stood Muslims and Sikhs. Therefore, Hinduism cannot be translated into a nation
and if there’s an appeal for a Hindu nation, it is only from the upper caste Hindu men. Next,
emphasis was laid on democracy. For him, democracy, in conjunction with being a system of
government, was a channel for conscious sharing and communication of differing ideas with equal
respect and reverence for others. This being synonymous with fraternity. This can also be
accompanied by his interpretation that complete liberty will leave no room for equality and vice
versa and fraternity only being a kind of assurance of safeguard.
Next was his concern for linguistic provinces as nationalities. Here, Aloysius is right in pointing out
that from today’s viewpoint Ambedkar’s position may seem absurd on this topic, but absurdity lies in
perceptions. Since the beginning Ambedkar was clear in his mind about having a common language
for the whole nation to be. This is surely not to be confused with linguistic majoritarianism for he did
not mean a forceful imposition of a language. He advocated the use of a common language for the
administrative convenience of the country because for a nation to be there a common language
should also be there leading to the democratic working of the state. Also, there was much haphazard
if Linguistic Provinces were to be carved out. Firstly, there would be as much nations as provinces
and also the central government will not be able to work as there will be a mentality of political
insubordination. Secondly, there would be seriously strained relations between the Centre and the
Provinces and if each provinces adopts its language as the official language, then the state will have
to correspond to all of them. Also, it would pose a serious problem to the delivery of justice in the
country as the Supreme Court cannot know each and every language spoken. It might also lead to a
breakup of the country. The only scheme of Linguistic Provinces which appealed to him was the
social homogeneity which is essential for the working of a democracy. Also, there is a mention that
each province must be linguistic unit if it is to be fitted to work a democratic Constitution. However,
the only bone of contention was the official language of the Centre. He accepted the creation of
Linguistic provinces and provision of the same official language for both the Provinces and the
Centre because the Linguistic Province has got nothing to do with the language of that province and
provincial language is not required to maintain the cultural unity which already existed. This is also
explanative of Hindi and English being granted the status of official language of India and the use of
state language for the working of states. Moreover, Ambedkar was also aware of his solution not
being an ideal solution, but, as India is a uniquely diverse country, this was the next to the best or
the most apt solution.

Next was his concern about democracy, the attitude of Congress and nationalists and different
version of independence. As mentioned before that for Ambedkar democracy was far more than just
being a form of government, an essential form of society where everyone has a say. Exclusion and
isolation are not democracy. What the leading figures of that time were doing was forwarding their
own interests and calling it nationalism. The main component of this set of leading nationalists was
high born Hindu men. Hence, they were not paying any heed to the needs of the lower castes or any
other religious minority. By citing Lord Dufferin, it has been told that Indian population was very
much diverse in its composition and each community had conflicting interests and prejudices. Also,
what Ambedkar has been saying for long had also been told by the Englishmen, that India being unfit
to rule itself due to the prevailing social divisions on the basis of religion and within the Hindus on
the basis of caste. This is sole root of the absence of endosmosis between the many groups of India.
Furthermore, emphasis is laid upon the many shades of freedom which were, of course, moulded by
the different contexts of the communities. Here, the important point which highlights the limitations
of nationalism of the elites is that they dismissed the demands of the minorities by terming them as
communalism forgetting that they were doing the same under the shadows. Also, Ambedkar was
termed as a “stooge of the British”. The one and only reason behind this that he was demanding
rights and immunities for his own community, the Dalit community and was placing the safeguard of
Dalits on a pedestal because their history is only an experience of subjugation. Another reason is
that he sided with the European ideas and was challenging the vulgar orthodoxy. Here, it should be
kept in mind that Ambedkar was not an anti-national man, he was not welcoming the Westerners,
but welcoming Western ideas upon which the ideal democratic society should be and everyone
should have safeguards against the evils of the social order. He was also just unveiling the true
nature of Indian society and showing that in conjunction with getting free from the colonial
government the Indians should also be emancipated of the grotesque mentality. In fact, this should
precede the ‘national’ freedom. Hence, he said that cutting the knot between the dominant nation
and the subservient nation will be a wanton act and will lead to disintegration as the existing social
setup was still unfavourable for independence and it’ll be a premature independence. Also, what the
leaders did was turning a blind eye towards the irreverence and putting their own interests on
pedestal in the name of nationalism. Furthermore, being concerned only about the elites, ignoring
the say of others and giving negative connotations to the same was the tomfoolery of the highest
order of the elites. Moreover, the untouchables were called “tools of British Imperialism” because
they refused to join the ‘fight for freedom’ as the foremost step towards freedom, for them, was
moving away from the official doctrine of Hinduism, graded inequality which was, for sure, not
pleasing to the upholders of this dogma. Also, the demand for aggressive Hindu majority was being
made in the name of nationalism meaning that the demands of the Muslims and the Depressed
Classes were being side-lined and Indian nationalism was just another wave of imperialism. It was
just that the leading charismatic figures were using their influence to tarnish nationalism in a way in
which it should not have been done. Moreover, Ambedkar was concerned about the nature and
attitude of the Congress. Although according to him the Congress was a Hindu body and the only
difference between it and Hindu Maha Sabha was that of brutality and politeness of action. Also, the
party was doing nothing about the untouchables and the Muslims. Since, the Hindus were governed
by casteism and prior to partition the country was experiencing an air of communalism and fusion of
the people became a primary concern, the limitation of the central government became explicit. Still
Ambedkar was not ready to move away from Congress and his concern here lay in changing the
attitude and orientation of the party.

Like others, Ambedkar also wanted swaraj. By this he meant government by the people, of the
people, for the people. This highlighted his preoccupation for the representation of the people who
were earlier kept away from taking part in decision making process. Here, it is also told that for
representation, the minds of people must be emancipated from the Brahmanical ideology and this is
only possible if the governing classes are ready for the notional change, giving the unrepresented
their dues. And this was not to disappear by mere mentioning of swaraj, but by power sharing by the
governing class. Although he mentioned that Jinnah and Gandhi both are making serious mistake,
only the question of representation and demands made stand for the creation of Pakistan.

Lastly, there were disagreements with the colonialists. This discontentment is in a complete
consonance with the disagreement which Phule had with the British. He admired the Western ideas
and reasoning. He also was a proponent of the limited representational and educational
opportunities which were opened up by the British. The discontentment was termed as the (Anti-
Colonial) Nationalism of the Depressed Classes. Under this acknowledgement has been given to the
limited spectrum of opportunities mentioned above, but the biggest limitation of the colonial
masters highlighted here was how much opportunities they may have given to the Depressed
Classes, but have done effort equal to naught to shatter the sin of casteist discrimination. The
problem had remained the same which was in pre-Colonial time. The zero effort to uplift the status
of the already downtrodden was a deliberate choice of the colonial masters. This was majorly
because of two reasons. First is the internal limitation. As mentioned in the previous sentence,
despite the fact the British could have helped with this, they did not do anything because it was
against their motives. An inference can be drawn from here, that despite being aware of their
subjects and seeing the casteist division of the society, they were treating India as a colony
comprised of a homogenous population, which obviously was wrong. The second limitation is that
they poured in no effort to abolish casteism for, in doing so, the fear of resistance surrounded the
British. Keeping these critiques in mind it can be said that the British government was paralysed on
will. This action of the British subsequently led to the concentration of high-born brown men and
strengthened their position within the intelligentsia. Also, this was the time when appeal for Poorna-
swaraj was made. This meant the shifting of power from colonial hands to the ‘nationalist’ hands
without anything being done to safeguard the Depressed Classes which might lead to the coming
back of the antique evils under the ‘swaraj’ government. In order to get complete independence,
first breaking free from such evils was necessary.

In totality, a nation for Ambedkar is an amalgam of people where everyone has equal say, where
everyone’s demands and needs are paid heed to. It is an area which is not defined in terms of
geography where people are at constant wars, but something which is governed by consciousness of
kind binding those who have a feeling of fellowship, where there is not some majoritarian empire
building, but accommodation and clearance of every internal difference first to instil in psyche of
people a collective sense of belongingness and unity despite any difference which may be there, be
it racial, caste-based, lingual or historical and this unity must be spiritual, not political. Also, a nation
comes to existence only when it is internally emancipated and only then a case for external
liberation could be made. These conditions will lead to democracy, which has been used
synonymously with fraternity by Ambedkar. Democracy being a foundational pillar for a nation,
which is not only a form of government, but a mode of associated living governed by endosmosis
between everyone living in that nation. It is also an expression of reverence and accommodation of
the needs of various social groups like the Depressed Classes (getting freed from oppression),
women (emancipation from Brahmanical patriarchy), religious minorities (recognition of demands),
labours (getting free from the degenerate conditions) and the like. however, there may be disunity
of needs, but it will balance out the nation. And this democratic regime should abide by
constitutional morality where no one has a bar against anyone for reaching to power and authority
and the governing class is ready to witness decentralisation of power and adhere to the idea of
representative government. Also, it is hard to find any limitation in his understanding of the concept
here for he was unveiling the reality before everyone. This, in conclusion, was the understanding of a
nation and democracy. And all these socio-political concerns made him a social democrat first, a
nationalist then and subsequently the ‘Champion of Human Rights’.